With de Leon slated to become the next Senate president pro-tem later this year, SB768 enjoys increased clout behind it.

According to the bill, the money would go into “the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Surtax Fund, the Breast Cancer Fund, the California Children and Families Trust Fund, and the General Fund, to offset the revenue decrease directly resulting from imposition of additional taxes by this article.”

California’s current tobacco tax is is 87 cents a pack. So $2 on top of that would be a 230 percent increase. The bill’s language diverts some of the revenues to the “General Fund” because a new cigarette tax would reduce cigarette purchases due to people quitting and increased black-market smuggling. The reduced sales thus would cut the sales taxes that also are collected on cigarettes.

Even though Democrats have supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature, it might not be easy to get two-thirds voting margins in an election year. Moderate Democrats with lots of Republican voters might shy away from being labeled “tax increaser.”

Initiative

As a result, as a backup option, tobacco-tax advocates are firing up the California Tobacco Tax for Healthcare Initiative. It has been approved for circulation in California as a contender for the November 4, 2014 ballot. The initiative’s name is “The California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2014.”

The initiative also would raise taxes by $2 a pack, although the money would be disbursed differently from SB768. According to the Legislative Analyst, the money would go to anti-tobacco campaigns, cancer research and to abate budgets that lose money because of reduced cigarette sales.

In an estimate that also would apply to SB768, the Legislative Analyst estimates that a $2 a pack tax increase would increase revenues from $1.1 billion to $1.5 billion a year. However, after backfills, only $830 million to $1.4 billion would go to the specified projects.

Prop. 29

The new proposals are advancing less than two years after Proposition 29 was rejected by voters in June 2012. It would have increased taxes $1 a pack to fund cancer research, anti-smoking programs and law enforcement.

If the new tax increase goes on the November ballot, it also would have a tough time passing because it would be twice the amount proposed by Prop. 29. However, Prop. 29 barely lost, 50.3 percent to 49.7 percent, giving hope to tax increase proponents.

And SB768  is backed by the same coalition which supported Prop. 29: the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the Service Employees International Union and Health Access California. All would benefit from the proceeds of the higher tax.

Black market 

The Tax Foundation published a study in Jan. 2012 which found nearly 60 percent of the cigarettes sold in New York state are smuggled from other states, or come from Indian reservations with lower tobacco taxes. The study found that tobacco smuggling and the tax rate have risen in tandem since 2006, a strong indication that tax increases and smuggling go hand-in-hand.

The New York State tax on cigarettes has risen 190 percent since 2006, while the rate of smuggling increased 170 percent. New York’s current rate is $4.35 a pack, a fair amount above the $2.87 tax California would impose should a $2 new tax be enacted by either the Legislature or the voters. But it’s clear, as the Leg Analyst also noted, that smuggling would increase.

The National Taxpayers Union Foundation released an excellent study in August detailing the recent history of tobacco taxes in the states. It found:

* States with low cigarette taxes have lower overall tax burdens;

* Tobacco tax hikes are rarely used to cut other taxes;

* Tobacco taxes don’t forestall other tax increases;

* Tobacco tax hikes may encourage other tax hikes down the road;

* Cigarette taxes don’t spur economic growth.

Other new taxes

Californians already pay the highest gas, sales and income taxes in the nation. Yet California lawmakers, on top of the potential new tobacco tax, also are introducing proposals that create new taxes and fees, including:

* SB241 by Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, would impose a 9.9 percent oil severance tax;

* SB622 by Sen. Bill Monning, D-Carmel, would create a one cent per ounce tax on soft drinks and sweetened beverages;

* SB700 by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, would create a five cent tax on single-use paper or plastic bags.

SB 359 is by state Sen. Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro. It approved a loan for $30 million to help finance low-income residents to transition away from older, higher-polluting vehicles. The bill also supports two state incentive programs for electric-drive cars, trucks and buses.

SB 459 is by state Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Aguora Hills. It requires the state to provide a voucher for a new alternative-fuel vehicle. The voucher would be given to low-income car owners who could not pass a smog test on their existing vehicle.

According to the bill analysis, the Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program established by AB 118 in 2007 has not “attracted substantial consumer participation.” Rebates have been issued to promote the very cleanest new vehicles paid for through smog abatement fees. In response, Pavley’s bill will hand out subsidies to remove “high polluting vehicles” from the road.

AB 8 is by Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-Fresno. It extended AB 118 until 2024. AB 118. For the current fiscal year, the program is expected to invest approximately $90 million to encourage the development and use of new technologies, and alternative and renewable fuels, to help the state meet its climate change goals. It is funded through vehicle and boat registration fees, as well as smog check and license plate fees.

While this is not the first voucher program CARB has created, it is the first that specifically targets low-income families who cannot afford an electric car.

As of early March 2013, the CARB has issued about 18,000 rebates totaling $41 million.

Also in March, the California Energy Commission voted to expand the state’s clean-vehicle rebate program with an award of $4.5 million to the California Air Resources Board through an interagency agreement to provide funding for the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project.

The latest fund award was made through the energy commission’s Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program, created by

Transportation justice

In the San Francisco Bay Area, the Transportation Justice Working Group is part of the Social Equity Caucus, and is facilitated by Urban Habitat. They are fighting against “entrenched interests in transportation decision-making that have yielded socially and racially unjust outcomes for the past century in the Bay Area.”

To this group, transportation justice is about the highway system which has “displaced and cut up low-income communities of color and continues to burden them with toxic air pollution, traffic hazards and other disproportionate threats to their safety and health.”

These decisions have prioritized the construction and expansion of commuter rail systems, like BART and Caltrain, that are designed to serve affluent suburban riders, at the expense of urban bus systems,” the group said.

While the Transportation Justice Working Group is largely talking about restoring a once-effective bus system, the California Air Resources Board continues to push instead for new electric cars for the low income.

“Most plug-in electric cars cost more than the used cars that lower-income families and communities — the people who could most benefit from EV fuel savings, in other words — can typically afford. It doesn’t have to be that way, however, and California’s Air Resource Board is working to help low-income families get access to EVs by issuing vouchers starting at $2500.”

“With net operating costs approaching zero for cars like Nissan’s Leaf in some cases, electric car ownership could go a long way towards enabling low-income wage earners to get better education, as well as better access to healthy food and healthcare,” said Gas2, a car blog. “These low-income families would also be able to get to a number of private-sector jobs that, without an EV, would be off-limits to them. That means they’d quickly pay back CARB’s $2500 voucher through increased income, payroll, and sales taxes.”

The numbers

According to the governor’s working group on zero-emission vehicles, the roadmap toward 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on California roadways by 2025, current spending will include:

* $44.5 million to help Californian buy low emissions vehicles such as plug-in hybrids and zero-emission cars and light trucks, with rebates of up to $2,500 as long as the funds last.

* The state’s hybrid and zero-emission truck and bus voucher incentive was increased from $5 million to $15 million. The vouchers of up to $55,000 are for fleet purchases of cleaner trucks and buses.

* The Truck Loan Assistance Program received an additional $18 million to help small-business fleet owners finance truck upgrades required by law.

STOP and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal said they filed the lawsuit against Sacramento City Council, the Sacramento city clerk,  and the city of Sacramento city over a decision to disqualify thousands of petitions that would have put the issue to a public vote on the June 3 ballot — a move many describe as government tyranny.

Jan. 24, the Sacramento city clerk announced that she rejected the petitions, along with 34,000 signatures, on the grounds some of the petition versions did not comply with election code.

“This is not a small number of people,” said Craig Powell, representing Voters for a Fair Arena Deal. “This is a significant contingent of Sacramento voters who’ve said ‘Let us vote.'”

Almost immediately after the announcement of the lawsuit, local Sacramento media reported the lawsuit is “by the group that doesn’t want the arena built.”

STOP and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal have said throughout the battle with the city, they are not opposed to an arena, and in fact are supportive of refurbishing the existing arena, or building a new one; they want the public subsidy of the arena project to be decided on by the voters of the city of Sacramento.

The attorney for STOP and VFAD said the errors the city clerk cited weren’t substantial enough to warrant disregarding 23,000 signatures, KCRA reported. “Nobody can claim they didn’t know what they were signing,” STOP attorney Bradly Hertz said.

“It’s really five mistakes that were really technical by the city clerk’s own admission, and (it is) almost silly that the city would rely on that as their way of trying to disenfranchise their voters,” said Hertz.

STOP is asking a judge to order the City Council to either adopt their petition, or place it on the June 3 ballot, and is hoping the matter will be heard by the Sacramento Superior Court immediately.

However, Judge Michael Kenny, the judge first assigned to the case, excused himself before a hearing in the case started, after it was revealed he had signed the petition to put the arena up for a vote, KCRA reported. The case was turned over to Judge Timothy Frawley.

Petition ‘errors’

STOP and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal said the five errors that the city clerk originally cited are not “substantive” and were just technical errors. Members of STOP told me they had a top elections attorney in the state review the petitions, and were told they complied with the law.

“The4000, a group representing the new downtown arena plan, responded to Friday’s decision by saying, ‘For STOP, this has never been about a vote and democracy; it has always been about tricking voters and stalling the arena with a two-part vote designed to blow up the project,’” reported Fox 40 news recently

The4000 was created by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA player, and the lead proponent to build the new arena.

“We all support the clerk and the city’s efforts to protect the public interest, especially given what’s at stake,” Johnson said in a statement.

Read all of CalWatchdog stories on the Sacramento Kings’ arena deal HERE.

Senate Constitutional Amendment 5, by state Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, was just introduced in the Legislature. It would allow the University of California and California State University again to use race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin as a consideration for accepting students into the schools.

It effectively would repeal Proposition 209, an initiative California voters passed in 1996. The official Prop. 209 ballot summary read by voters said:

“Prohibits the state, local governments, districts, public universities, colleges, and schools, and other government instrumentalities from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to any individual or group in public employment, public education, or public contracting on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”

So far, laws and initiatives similar to Prop. 209 have been passed in seven other states.

But Hernandez believe Prop. 209 has stifled diversity in CA higher education.

“Enrollment decreases [of Latinos and African Americans in state universities] have become steeper and are not keeping pace with the changing populations,” Hernandez said Thursday in the Senate. “It was a mistake in 1996 and we are still suffering consequences of that today. SCA 5 will simply allow California’s public universities to compete for students with the best and brightest backgrounds, so we can keep our academic excellence here in our state, and not in some other state.”

Connerly

“I hope Sen. Hernandez and members of the Latino Caucus really take a leadership role and explain [SCA 5] to their constituents,” said Ward Connerly, president of the American Civil Rights Institute. He is the author of Prop. 209 and has helped pass similar initiatives in Michigan and other states.

Connerly said the motive behind SCA 5 and previous bills is to try to get more Latinos into UC schools. “The Latino Caucus is dominant in the Legislature,” he said. “The [university] admissions people will have to do what they want.”

Indeed, the discussion on the state Senate largely involved members of the Latino Caucus.

Hernandez said that, in 1995, prior to Prop. 209’s enactment, 38 percent of California high school graduates were minorities, while 21 percent of freshmen in the UC system were minorities. By 2004, minorities accounted for 45 percent of high school graduates, but just 18 percent of freshmen in the UC system.

“A blanket prohibition on consideration of race was a mistake in 1996, and we are still suffering the consequences from that initiative today,” Hernandez said. “You cannot address inequality by refusing to acknowledge it.”

Of particular issue with lawmakers is the dominance of Asian students in UC and CSU schools.

Currently, UC freshmen are 36 percent Asian, 28.1 percent white, 27.6 percent Latino and 4.2 percent African American.

Yet California’s population is 13.9 Asian, 39.4 percent “White alone, not Hispanic or Latino,” 38.2 percent Latino, and 6.6 percent African American, according to the U.S. Census.

Hernandez and legislators representing minorities want the state’s college admissions to reflect the population more closely.

“We need to do a better job ensuring our students of color feel welcome at our public universities and colleges,” said Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens. “And that students represent our changing population.”

“Prop. 209 created a barrier for people of color to access higher education,” said Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego. “We didn’t apply the rule to include high schools. Yet with these prohibitions, we have seen a stark reduction to access of higher education by people of color, only leading to a sense of hopelessness within this community, creating a high condition of inequality in our society.”

K-12 problems

“Our problem is K-12,” charged Sen. Mark Wyland, R-Escondido. “There is already data before Prop. 209 that many of those students admitted experience failures, and it changed their lives because they failed,” Wyland added. “We can solve the problem we’re after if we can get K-12 and the Community College system prepared. We’ll have a lot better outcome.”

Prop. 209’s defenders also point out that the state’s Latino and African American children especially are shortchanged by a state school system that regularly scores near the bottom of the 50 states on national tests. This is shown on federal statistics for the National Assessment of Educational Progress on mathematics achievement, a crucial component of success at the university level. It found:

“In 2013, Black students had an average score that was 33 points lower than White students. This performance gap was not significantly different from that in 1990 (38 points). 

„”In 2013, Hispanic students had an average score that was 28 points lower than White students. This performance gap was not significantly different from that in 1990 (34 points).”

Numerous K-12 reforms in public schools over 23 years at the federal, state and local levels have done nothing to close the performance gap. Prop. 209’s defenders insist that more rigorous reforms — such as school vouchers — are needed to advance the performance of Latino and African American children. In California, the teachers’ unions vigorously have opposed vouchers in two referendums that voters defeated.

Initiative

If SCA 5 passes, it could be put before voters this November, essentially making it a referendum on Prop. 209. SCA 5 next will be heard the Assembly.

In 2011 Hernandez authored the controversial Senate Bill 185, which was also an attempt to repeal Prop. 209. SB185 passed both legislative houses but was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown, who said he agreed with the goals of affirmative action but that it was up to the courts, not the Legislature, to limit Prop. 209.

In both 2000 and 2010, the California Supreme Court ruled that Prop. 209 was constitutional.

Supreme Court

At the federal level, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down several decisions that have not definitively determined the constitutionality of affirmative action. A new case expected to be decided this year is described by NPR:

“The U.S. Supreme Court takes up the issue of affirmative action again … but this time the question is not whether race may be considered as a factor in college admissions. Instead, this case tests whether voters can ban affirmative action programs through a referendum.

“In 2003, the high court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy. The next day, opponents of affirmative action launched a referendum campaign to bar such programs, and in 2006, voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative amending the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs in higher education.

“Michigan’s state colleges and universities promptly abandoned any use of race or ethnicity to promote diversity, and minority enrollment plummeted. In 2012, a federal appeals court ruled that the referendum itself was discriminatory, and the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to decide the issue.”

The case has obvious implications for Prop. 209 and explains why Gov. Brown, also a former California attorney general, based his veto on waiting for the courts to decide the matter.

The case is expected to be decided by June. Oral discussions by the court last October seemed to indicate that it would uphold the state bans on affirmative action. But the court can be unpredictable.

The creation of the 3-D gun is only about one year old. The first 3D-printed gun initially was fired in the spring of 2013.

3D printers are $10,000 machines that can use digital designs to build a variety of devices out of thousands of layers of hard plastic.

The homemade plastic gun, known as the “Liberator .380,” is made with a computer blueprint, a 3-D printer and plastic resin.

Law enforcement says plastic guns can pass through security checkpoints without setting off metal detectors. “They are so frightening because they render most standard detection useless,” said Tim Murphy, former deputy director of the FBI, in a Dallas News story.

It will be difficult to keep tabs on firearms that are made at home using 3-D printer. But SB 808, by Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, requires a person to obtain a serial number from the California Department of Justice, and submit to a background check, prior to making a ghost gun.

It is already against the law to have an undetectable gun that could go through security monitors without being seen. That law was passed in In 1988 in the U.S. Congress under the Undetectable Firearms Act.

De Leon stressed SB 808 does not ban the ghost guns. “There is a loophole in the law for homemade guns,” de Leon said. “Ghost guns have fallen into the hands of criminals.”

Plastic guns

In the 1980s, the U.S. Congress looked into an Austrian-made Glock made of polymer plastic that opponents claimed was undetectable in airport screenings. Some cities, including, New York City, banned the Glock.

But according to Popular Mechanics:

“Airport security machines did detect the Glock because they’re mostly X-ray machines, and X-rays see plastic just the way they see metal. Moreover, by weight, the Glock is actually mostly metal anyway. The slide is made out of steel, so if you do have a magnetometer, it should detect that slide. And if someone is staring at it and knows what they’re looking for, they should be able to see it. This was a huge embarrassment for gun-control forces and a huge boon for Glock. There is no better way in the United States to get attention for a gun than to suggest it’s extremely potent and effective.”

Crime is not due to homemade guns

“The crime happening in the state is not due to homemade guns,” said Sen. Steve Knight, R-Antelope Valley, a former police officer. Knight explained most people are not able to tell the difference between homemade and undetectable guns.

“Somewhere along the path we’ve lost our way,” said state Sen. Joel Anderson, R-El Cajon. “We look at all guns as evil, not at criminals.”

Anderson said only law-abiding citizens will pay attention to the law. “Gangbangers will not. 3-D printers are available in some libraries. This is just more minutia The real problem is that gang members and criminals are out there. We’re not doing anything to collect their guns. But we are truing to collect the guns of law-abiding citizens.”

Anderson advocated focusing on serious policies that might reduce crime rather than going after guns.

De Leon said that, because Congress failed to pass gun control legislation last year, “We can act” in California.

SB 808 passed the state Senate, 21-9.

H.R. 3964 by California Congressmen David G. Valadao, CA-21, Devin Nunes, CA-22, and Kevin McCarthy, CA-23, is a comprehensive bill to resolve the water crisis in California, according to the congressmen.

“H.R. 3964 is an unwelcome and divisive intrusion into California’s efforts to manage this severe crisis,” Brown wrote in a letter to the Congressmen. “It would override state laws and protections, and mandate that certain water interests come out ahead of others. It falsely suggests the promise of water relief when that is simply not possible given the scarcity of water supplies.”

H.R. 3964 would undo years of environmental dominance in California’s water priorities.

Brown said the bill would “re-open old water wounds undermining years of progress toward reaching a collaborative long-term solution to our water needs.”

Valadeo, Nunes and McCarthy say the bill would undo a San Joaquin River restoration program, would improve water access for Valley farms. The San Joaquin restoration program to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of Merced River and restore a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery.

What Brown could be angry about is the California Department of Water Resources announced in November that the Central Valley would only get five percent of the water it needs in 2014. Valadeo’s office reported Thursday, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Michael Connor upheld Valadao’s position, along with other Central Valley lawmakers, regarding rescheduled water deliveries for Central Valley Project water contractors. The letter to the Bureau urged the Administration to reconsider halting rescheduled water deliveries to San Joaquin Valley farmers. The letter stated strong opposition to the use of rescheduled water to meet other Central Valley Project water delivery needs at the expense of farmers and contractors in the Valley.

In an interview I did in November with Sen. Andy Vidak, R-Hanford, he explained:

“California has had two dry years, the Central Valley is suffering under the San Joaquin River Restoration Program, a federal program to restore flows to the San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the confluence of Merced River, in order to restore Chinook salmon in the river. “Billions are being spent on dry salmon runs,” Vidak said. “We’re spending $2 million to $3 million per fish!”

“H.R. 3964, the Sacramento–San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act restores water reliability to California communities by codifying the bipartisan Bay-Delta Accord,” Valadeo’s website says. “It also reforms onerous federal laws – such as the Central Valley Project Improvement Act and the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act – that have severely curtailed water deliveries and resulted in hundreds of billions of gallons of badly needed water being flushed into the ocean.” Valadeo represents Kings County and portions of Fresno, Tulare, and Kern Counties, three of the hardest-hit counties in the recession and drought.

“The current California drought is a crisis exacerbated by the failure of government to ensure water flows to our communities and farms,” said Rep. McCarthy. “Today, led by my good friend Rep. David Valadao, the entire California Republican delegation in the House introduced legislation to put families before fish. One more day cannot go by without addressing the shortage of a resource so precious to our economy and wellbeing. It is time, as representatives for the entire state, that Senator Boxer and Senator Feinstein support drought stricken Californians and get behind this legislation.”

Valadeo’s website recently reported House Republicans passed comprehensive water policy reform legislation for California (H.R. 1837) in February 2012. The bill would have mitigated the water crisis now going on in the Central Valley. However, the bill died in the Senate “due to the opposition of California’s Democratic Senators,” Valadeo’s website reported. “No Senate hearings were held, nor were any amendments offered or alternatives proposed. Furthermore, the Senate recently prevented the addition of emergency drought relief provisions for California in the Farm Bill,” the website said.

On Jan. 28, the California Senate passed Senate Bill 199, by state Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles. The vote was 23 to 8. The bill would require BB and airsoft guns to be painted bright colors to make them “readily identifiable” so law enforcement officers could distinguish them from real firearms.

Police shooting of 13-year-old

In the Senate debate on Jan. 23, de Leon addressed the recent shooting death of 13-year-old Andy Lopez in Santa Rosa, who was carrying an airsoft BB replica of an AK-47 automatic rifle.

“Law enforcement officers have extreme difficulty distinguishing between the real thing and what is fake,” de Leon said. “This is about saving lives.”

Sen. Steve Knight, R-Lancaster, disagreed. The former Los Angeles police officer said, “Today a brand new 9 millimeter gun can look like a toy. A brightly colored gun isn’t necessarily a toy. Are we going to write a bill when a police officer gets shot by a real gun painted bright orange?”

“The tragedy has rocked Santa Rosa and Sonoma County to its very core,” said Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, a co-author of the bill. “A toy should look like a toy. A toy should not get a child killed.”

Santa Rosa police said that Lopez’ airsoft gun did not have the required orange marker.

Similar incidents have occurred elsewhere in America. In 2012, police fatally shot a Texas eighth-grader who was carrying a pellet gun resembling a black Glock. In 2011, Miami police shot and killed a man carrying a realistic-looking replica gun.

However, bright colored firearms — real guns — already exist. There are bright pink Glocks, white AR15s, pretty pearl-handled revolvers, Burberry print rifles and even a 9 millimeter with a leopard print grip — all designed to appeal to women.

For many years gang members, and some suspected narcotics dealers near the border with Mexico, have painting their weapons to resemble airsoft weapons.

The bad guys

“The problem is, we can’t control the bad guys from painting their weapons,” said Sen. Joel Anderson, R-San Diego. “If this bill was about educating our youth how to react to law enforcement, I’d support it.”

Anderson told a story about a man in San Diego apprehended by police. He came at officers with a trowel — and they shot and killed him.

“The bill puts false hope out there,” Anderson said.

Airsoft is a sport

Redding resident T.J. Armstrong is an airsoft enthusiast. “It’s a community sport,” Armstrong said. “It is a father-son sport.”

Armstrong plays on an all father-son team in Redding and told CalWatchdog.com what SB199 will do to the sport. “This bill just kills another sport and successful industry,” he said.

Armstrong said the area property he uses was a local eyesore. So his team asked the property owner if they could use the land for airsoft sporting in exchange for a huge cleanup and ongoing maintenance of the land.

Now, not only do all of the airsoft players in Redding use the field, local police and sheriffs participate for training and ongoing exercises.

Armstrong said that if SB199 becomes law, it will shutter many businesses and thousands of people will lose their jobs. “This bill will not improve public safety at all,” he said.

Specifics

Specifically, SB199 would require that all toy guns, replica guns and BB guns be painted bright orange, purple, red, blue, green and yellow colors.

And in would make it illegal to own all weapons that shoot a 6 mm BB. “No more Red Ryder Daisy BB Guns, no more Pellet Guns, no more Airsoft guns,” Armstrong said.

Armstrong provided a partial list of of groups and businesses located throughout the state of California that would be affected:

AirsoftGI

Airsoft Megastore

Evike.com

Airsplat

U.S. Airsoft

Fort Ord

CQB City

Shorty Airsoft

Lion Claws

Airsoft Extreme

DogTag Airsoft

And the communities which have active Airsoft facilities:

Redding Area Airsoft

The Shadow Legion Airsoft Team

The Jefferson State Regulators Airsoft Team

U.S. Airsoft Team

The Misfits Airsoft Team

The SMS Airsoft Team

Sacramento Airsoft

Butte County Regional Airsoft

Easy Company Airsoft

Airsoft Craigslist

Sutter Yuba Airsoft

Airsoft World Wide

Magpul Masada PTS

Phantom Force Airsoft

Susanville Airsoft Squad S.A.S.

Polarstar Airsoft Owners’ Group

I Play Airsoft

PTW Sales & Forum

BoE Airsoft

The Airsoft Exchange

Chloe Stirling is a young entrepreneur, and embodies the American spirit. She  has been running her business, Hey, Cupcake!, out of her parents’ kitchen. She brings in about $200 a month baking cupcakes for family, friends, and social events. Chloe sells her beautifully decorated cupcakes for $10 a dozen, and $2 for each specialty cupcake. Chloe even donated cupcakes when a boy in her school fighting cancer held a fundraiser.

After a local story about Chloe ran in BND.com, Health officials in Madison Co., Illinois descended on the sixth grader’s home. If Chloe Stirling wants to continue selling cupcakes, Health Department officials told her she will need to buy a bakery or build a separate kitchen in the family home.

“Working out of her family’s kitchen, the sixth-grader at Triad Middle School is busy almost every week with her business, Hey, Cupcake!” BND.com reported. “She lost count of how many cakes and cupcakes she has created, but it’s been hundreds. Considering she also runs her own pet-sitting business, ‘No Bones About It,’ with about a dozen year-round clients, and plays soccer, Chloe has a full schedule.”

But because she sells the cupcakes, health department spokeswoman Amy Yeager said she needs a permit, KMOV St. Louis reported. Yeager said by not having a permit, Chloe Stirling violates the county’s food ordinance and Illinois State Food Sanitation Code.

It’s obvious regulators like Amy Yeager have nothing better to do than protect the citizens of Troy, Illinois from Chloe Stirling’s dangerous cupcakes.

And that is the problem: as government expands, it hires more regulators who end up looking for busy work, and ways to generate revenue.

Evidence of this are the numerous stories of health department and police officials across the country shutting down dangerous lemonade stands run by 7-year olds:

In Oregon, Multnomah County health inspectors threatened to fine a 7-year-old for opening a lemonade stand in 2010 at a local arts fair without a license.

Georgia police shut down a lemonade stand run by three girls in 2011, saying they didn’t have a business license or the required permits.

Hoping to raise money for a family trip to Disneyland, a Tulare girl opened a lemonade stand in 2009. But because she didn’t have a business license, the city of Tulare shut it down the same day.

In 2011, in Hazelwood, Missouri two young girls scouts were permanently banned from selling girl scout cookies in the front yard of their own home.  A neighbor ratted them out and the police moved in swiftly to shut them down.

A lemonade stand run by kids in Maryland raising money for a pediatric cancer charity was shut down. Authorities originally slapped a $500 fine on their parents until public pressure from the many news stories forced them to rescind the fine.

Ridiculous government health inspectors and police prompted Robert Fernandes to challenge Philadelphia police when he set up a lemonade stand on Lemonade Freedom Day. His website says, Selling Lemonade is not a crime.”

In a bygone era, if young kids wanted to earn some money, they would set up a stand in front of their home, and sell lemonade, Kool-aid or even homemade cookies. For many children, this was their first opportunity to make and handle money.

Even though Chloe Stirling’s parents are considering building a second kitchen in their basement so she can continue baking, Chloe has more visits from health inspectors ahead of her in the heavily regulated, and dangerous cupcake business.

California has not fully analyzed the state’s current trade system needs, nor are the port facilities fully coordinated, according to Huntington Beach Assemblyman Travis Allen. Yet continuing legislative efforts to introduce policies may not be addressing the actual needs of our trade infrastructure.

AB 337 by Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, requires the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development to evaluate key issues affecting trade and foreign investment as part of the development of previously mandated international trade and investment strategy.

Perhaps even more important, AB 337 would require that Go-Biz international trade strategy include an evaluation of the ports of entry to the state, and their capacity for handling international trade originated in or destined for other states.

According to Allen, AB 337 adds additional criteria for the preparation of the international trade and investment strategy.  The bill will add a comprehensive list of business development needs to be considered in preparing the strategy, according to Allen.

AB 337 would require that the State’s International Trade and Investment strategy include a full analysis of the transportation infrastructure and physical capacity to meet the import and export needs of California’s ports of entry, including air, ground, and sea.

“Our ports continuously need to adapt to meet the demands of the rapidly evolving global trade marketplace,” Allen said Monday in the Assembly when presenting AB 337. “This bill sends the message that the Legislature is committed to strengthening California’s economy through one of our strongest and best opportunities for growth and job creation – international trade.”

California trade

In 2012, California exported $162 billion in products to more than 220 foreign countries.  Even with severe economic impacts due to the recession, exports continued to increase in nearly every quarter, through 2012.

“California, the second largest exporter of products in the U.S. and the largest receiver of foreign direct investment in the nation, with the upgrading of the Panama Canal and two new broad-based trade agreements being negotiated and implemented (the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Agreement), California goods movement infrastructure will face even greater pressure to perform,” according to bill analysis.

“We depend on California ports to increase international trade, strengthen our state’s economy, and provide good paying jobs,” said Allen.  “Increased competition from other states and countries, coupled with the widening of the Panama Canal in 2015 highlight the need to properly assess the steps our state should take to help our ports succeed.”

California ports handle approximately 45 percent of all the waterborne containerized cargo coming into the United States. Port activities employ more than 500,000 people in California, more than 2,000,000 nationwide and generate an estimated $7,000,000,000 in state and local taxes annually, according to See California.

Allen added: “Due to the amount of jobs and revenue relying on California’s ports, it’s imperative that we support this vital component of our international trade strategy.”

The California Assembly voted unanimously Monday to keep control of the fire rings with local cities. The vote countered restrictions on the fire rings imposed last year by the Southern California Air Quality Management District, as well as a potential total ban.

The Press-Telegram reported last July:

“DIAMOND BAR – Despite vocal opposition from some beachgoers, the South Coast Air Quality Management District board Friday approved restrictions on fire pits on Southland beaches.

“The restrictions require fire pits to either be kept at least 700 feet away from the nearest residence. The rings can be closer than 700 feet to residences if the rings are at least 100 feet apart from each other — or at least 50 feet apart if a city has 15 or fewer rings. The measure also includes restrictions on beach fires on high-pollution days.”

A bipartisan effort led to Assembly Bill 1102, co-authored by two Orange County assembly members, Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, and Sharon-Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton. If the bill becomes law, before a city is forced by the AQMD to remove the fire rings from the beaches in Orange and Los Angeles counties, the AQMD would be required to work with local coastal cities and oversight agencies to:

• Prove there will be no loss of beach access;
• Prove there will be no harm to local economies under any AQMD regulations;
• Address  environmental concerns.

2013 resolution

Last year, Allen authored ACR 52, which read:

“This resolution supports the protection of California’s beaches, access to those beaches, and important traditions that are integral to our culture and beach lifestyle, such as fire rings….

“Beach bonfires are a safe and inexpensive recreational activity and are enjoyed by all the members of our community, regardless of socioeconomic class.… Beach attractions result in optimum economic and community activity, from gatherings of family and friends, beach barbeques, community events, and beach sports, and much more.”

After the non-binding resolution passed, it was evident the AQMD was not going to reverse the bonfire bans. So Allen and Quirk-Silva announced AB1102, legislation to officially reverse the AQMD’s actions.

“The fire rings have been an important part of our beach experience for over 60 years,”  the group Save the Southern California Beach Bonfire Rings explains on its website and Facebook page. “They provide an affordable means of gathering family and friends on Southern California shores to celebrate our outdoor beach lifestyle with s’mores and hotdog roasting under the stars, all while enjoying the glow of a warm fire.”

Allen pointed out that banning the fire rings would cut $1 million a year in fees for Huntington Beach and $19 million for all Orange County coastal cities.

Health concerns

The push to ban fire rings originated in Newport Beach from residents who live near the beach and don’t like the smoke wafting into their homes. According to the Daily Pilot:

“Under the rule, Newport Beach, whose application to the California Coastal Commission to remove its fire rings first spurred the AQMD to look into a possible ban, can get rid of its 60 fire pits near the Balboa Pier and at Corona del Mar State Beach.”

Allen also told CalWatchdog.com that those who live along the ocean in many coastal cities don’t like the beach crowds and have complained to local officials about the noise from nighttime bonfires.

Even though the homeowners bought the property knowing it was attached to publicly accessed beaches, residents demanded government regulators ban the fire pits to keep people off the beaches at night.

However, homeowners complaining about people using the beach near their homes would not elicit much sympathy.

Stronger reasons for removing the rings came after the American Lung Association claimed the fire pits are a health hazard.

“Fire rings are creating hazards in communities that are damaging to one’s health and to the health of residents who live nearby,” said Bonnie Holmes-Gen, senior director for policy and advocacy for the American Lung Association in California. “We’re very concerned about the impact of the smoke, … and it contributes to asthma attacks, strokes, a number of respiratory illnesses, and it can even cause premature death.”

Holmes-Gen said particulates in wood smoke are especially dangerous to young, developing lungs. Holmes-Gen said teenagers and young adults, the very people supposedly at the greatest risk from beach fires, are the most frequent attendees at the fire pits.

Yet the bill analysis says, “[T]he greatest health effect from wood smoke exposure originates from the fine particles that can cause health problems ranging from minor irritations such as burning eyes and runny noses to chronic illnesses such as bronchitis.”

Bill proponents also point out beach wind speed is usually high, cleaning the air.

Regulating wholesome, inexpensive fun

“Beach bonfires are an activity enjoyed by people from all across California, including those who cannot afford multi-million dollar beachfront homes,” Allen said in the Assembly Monday.  “This legislation will ensure that every Californian has access to our beautiful beaches through the affordable iconic activity of a beach bonfire.”

“This is just another family fun activity,” said Quirk-Silva. “We wanted it handled at the local level, but that is not to be.”

“This is a symbol of a free people,” Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia, added. “It should’t be regulated to a privileged few.”

Assemblyman Eric Linder, R-Corona, talked of fond family memories of a sunset on the beach, a bonfire, and roasting marshmallows.

“It would be hard to imagine the Orange County Coast without fire rings on the beach,” Allen said. “Now let’s go burn some wood.”